Monthly Archives: June 2010

Interacting with stories and/or with data

1 Reply

A researcher, Ivo Swarties, at the University of Twente in The Netherlands is developing a means of allowing viewers to enter into a story (via avatar) and affect the plotline in what seems like a combination of what you’d see in 2nd Life and gaming. The project also brings to mind The Diamond Age by Neal Stephenson and its intelligent nanotechnology-enabled book along with Stephenson’s latest publishing project, Mongoliad (which I blogged about here).

The article about Swarties’ project on physorg.com by Rianne Wanders goes on to note,

The ‘Virtual Storyteller’, developed by Ivo Swartjes of the University of Twente, is a computer-controlled system that generates stories automatically. Soon it will be possible for you as a player to take on the role of a character and ‘step inside’ the story, which then unfolds on the basis of what you as a player do. In the gaming world there are already ‘branching storylines’ in which the gamer can influence the development of a story, but Swartjes’ new system goes a step further. [emphasis mine]The world of the story is populated with various virtual figures, each with their own emotions, plans and goals. ‘Rules’ drawn up in advance determine the characters’ behaviour, and the story comes about as the different characters interact.

There’s a video with the article if you want to see this project for yourself.

On another related front, Cliff Kuang profiles in an article (The Genius Behind Minority Report’s Interfaces Resurfaces, With Mind-blowing New Tech) on the Fast Company site describes a new human-computer interface. This story provides a contrast to the one about the ‘Virtual Storyteller’ because this time you don’t have to become an avatar to interact with the content. From the article,

It’s a cliche to say that Minority Report-style interfaces are just around the corner. But not when John Underkoffler [founder of Oblong Industries] is involved. As tech advistor on the film, he was the guy whose work actually inspired the interfaces that Tom Cruise used. The real-life system he’s been developing, called g-speak, is unbelievable.

…

Oblong hasn’t previously revealed most of the features you see in the later half of the video [available in the article’s web page or on YouTube], including the ability zoom in and fly through a virtual, 3-D image environment (6:30); the ability to navigate an SQL database in 3-D (8:40); the gestural wand that lets you manipulate and disassemble 3-D models (10:00); and the stunning movie-editing system, called Tamper (11:00).

Do go see the video. At one point, Underkoffler (who was speaking at the February 2010 TED) drags data from the big screen in front of him onto a table set up on the stage where he’s speaking.

Perhaps most shockingly (at least for me) was the information that this interface is already in use commercially (probably in a limited way).

These developments and many others suggest that the printed word’s primacy is seriously on the wane, something I first heard 20 years ago. Oftentimes when ideas about how technology will affect us are discussed, there’s a kind of hysterical reaction which is remarkably similar across at least two centuries. Dave Bruggeman at his Pasco Phronesis blog has a posting about the similarities between Twitter and 19th century diaries,

Lee Humphreys, a Cornell University communications professor, has reviewed several 18th and 19th century diaries as background to her ongoing work in classifying Twitter output (H/T Futurity). These were relatively small journals, necessitating short messages. And those messages bear a resemblance to the kinds of Twitter messages that focus on what people are doing (as opposed to the messages where people are reacting to things).

Dave goes on to recommend The Shock of the Old; Technology and Global History since 1900 by David Edgerton as an antidote to our general ignorance (from the book’s web page),

Edgerton offers a startling new and fresh way of thinking about the history of technology, radically revising our ideas about the interaction of technology and society in the past and in the present.

I’d also recommend Carolyn Marvin’s book, When old technologies were new, where she discusses the introduction of telecommunications technology and includes the electric light with these then new technologies (telegraph and telephone). She includes cautionary commentary from the newspapers, magazines, and books of the day which is remarkably similar to what’s available in our contemporary media environment.

Adding a little more fuel is Stephen Hume in a June 12, 2010 article about Shakespeare for the Vancouver Sun who asks,

But is the Bard relevant in an age of atom bombs; a world of instant communication gratified by movies based on comic books, sex-saturated graphic novels, gory video games, the television soaps and the hip tsunami of fan fiction that swashes around the Internet?

[and answers]

So, the Bard may be stereotyped as the bane of high school students, symbol of snooty, barely comprehensible language, disparaged as sexist, racist, anti-Semitic, representative of an age in which men wore tights and silly codpieces to inflate their egos, but Shakespeare trumps his critics by remaining unassailably popular.

His plays have been performed on every continent in every major language. He’s been produced as classic opera in China; as traditional kabuki in Japan. He’s been enthusiastically embraced and sparked an artistic renaissance in South Asia. In St. Petersburg, Russia, there can be a dozen Shakespeare plays running simultaneously. Shakespeare festivals occur in Austria, Belgium, Finland, Portugal, Sweden and Turkey, to list but a few.

Yes to Pasco Phronesis, David Edgerton, Carolyn Marvin, and Stephen Hume, I agree that we have much  in common with our ancestors but there are also some profound and subtle differences not easily articulated.  I suspect that if time travel were possible and we could visit Shakespeare’s time we would find that the basic human experience doesn’t change that much but that we would be hardpressed to fit into that society as our ideas wouldn’t just be outlandish they would be unthinkable. I mean literally unthinkable.

As Walter Ong noted in his book, Orality and Literacy, the concept of a certain type of list is a product of literacy. Have you ever done that test where you pick out the item that doesn’t belong on the list? Try: hammer, saw, nails, tree. The correct answer anybody knows is tree since it’s not a tool. However, someone from oral culture would view the exclusion of the tree as crazy since you need both tools and  wood to build something and clearly the tree provides wood. (I’ll see if I can find the citation in Ong’s book as he provides research to prove his point.) A list is a particular way of organizing information and thinking about it.

European nanotech communication roadmap and Canada’s silence

1 Reply

Michael Berger in one of his articles on the Nanowerk website critiques a 188 page roadmap published March 2010 and  titled Communicating Nanotechnology: Why, to whom, saying what and how? from the European Commission. From Berger’s article,

“You cannot have an appropriate social dialogue on nanotechnology without an open-minded, consistent and even audacious communication roadmap aiming to bring everyone in.” So begins the foreword to a new Communication Roadmap by the European Commission on communicating nanotechnology in Europe. Very true! But coming from an organization that is not exactly known for a coherent and consistent, not to mention timely, approach to communicating across its many members, cultures and languages, it’s going to be interesting to see what they have come up with now.

I’ve not had time to do much more than a skim a few pages of the roadmap but, as Berger later points out, it’s good to see an attempt to list all of the nanotechnology communication activities undertaken by the European Commission to date. The list is specific to European Commission activities, I did not see any UK-based efforts listed, which means there’s communication about nanotechnology, not included on the roadmap, taking place that’s country- and or region-specific.

About the US, Berger had this to say,

… (the situation in the U.S. isn’t much better; on the contrary, they don’t even have this kind of communications roadmap) …

Meanwhile, the best I can say about the Canadian situation is that most of the communication about nanotechnology takes place behind closed doors. If anyone out there knows differently, please do let me know.

If you want to download the roadmap, go here (Berger noted some problems downloading but I didn’t have any when I tried later).

ETA (June 15, 2010): Dexter Johnson at Nanoclast offers some thoughts about this roadmap and other European efforts in their cycle of reports about nanotechnology (from his June 15, 2010 posting),

I have worked for the last six years at a European-based company where much of its work has been in consulting on nanotechnology. As an American in these circumstances I have come into contact with what at times has seemed to be the bewildering sensibilities of the European bureaucrat.

…  [mention of Michael Berger’s article about the European Commission’s latest nanotechnology communications report/roadmap]

This odd habit of always starting from scratch in these road mapping exercises seems to be one practiced in the UK as well.

Dexter goes on to extend the conversation with a discussion of the latest move by Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) to ban the use of nanosilver and long multiwalled carbon nanotubes in products and he includes a reference to Tim Harper’s latest posting about the matter on TNT log.

Enriching food with nanoparticles?

Leave a reply

There’s a team of Swiss researchers addressing the problem of anemia (iron deficiency) and zinc deficiency by adding iron and/or zinc nanoparticles to food. According to the article by Eric Bland on the Discovery News website,

“Iron and zinc deficiencies are common around the world,” said Michael Zimmermann, a scientist at ETH Zurich and a co-author of a recent Nature Nanotechnology article. “Yet many compounds used in food fortification are either absorbed poorly or, when they have high absorption, change the color, taste and smell of food.”

Anemia, or a lack of iron, affects more than 2 billion people worldwide and is arguably the most widespread micronutrient deficiency. Without enough iron the the body can become lethargic and cognitively impaired. For some pregnant women, the lack of iron can kill them during childbirth. Some economists have even speculated that a nation’s gross domestic product is depressed because of anemic and lethargic workers, said Zimmermann.

Lack of zinc impairs a person’s normal growth and can lead to diarrhea, pneumonia, anorexia and other conditions.

Standard ways of fortifying food with zinc and/or iron present various challenges including this one as noted by Zimmermann only a limited amount of iron can be added as it affects the food’s taste, smell, and/or appearance (this and other challenges are detailed in Bland’s article). So scientists continue to work on better ways to fortify food so that more people on the planet can benefit. The Swiss team’s approach,

The new research solves this conundrum. To create the nanoparticles the Swiss scientists dissolved iron in water, then sprayed the solution over very hot fire. The intense heat quickly evaporates the water, leaving tiny iron or zinc crystals, each one about 10 nanometers across. Those nanocrystals then clump together.

The large clumps do not change the taste, color or smell of food. When the clumps drop into the stomach acid, however, they break apart into tiny particles, which are easily absorbed by the body.

These zinc and/or iron nanoparticles, which do not affect the food’s taste, smell, or appearance, have been tested on rats. (I wonder how they figured out that taste isn’t affected since there haven’t been any human clinical trials.) More research needs to be done before humans get a chance to try these nanotechnology-enabled foods but this does seem promising.

By the way, the rats were fed chocolate milk and banana smoothies.

Nano haiku and a nano-influenced job at a museum

Leave a reply

The June 2010 issue of the NISE Net (Nanoscale Informal Science Education Network)  Newsletter features some information about a job at the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry,

The Oregon Museum of Science and Industry is hiring a Senior Research and Evaluation Associate. The person will be designing, executing, and facilitating research and evaluation studies related to exhibits, programs, and museum initiatives and will help lead division efforts. Some of their time will be spent on the NISE Net evaluation

For more information about the museum, you can go here, and for the job description, you can go here.  Excerpt from the job description,

· Support ethical treatment of human evaluation and research subjects. Complete related training as required.

· Help lead division efforts to stay informed on theory, methods, and standards related to evaluation and visitor studies.

· Help lead division efforts to secure new funded projects.

· Help manage project budget and timelines as assigned.

· Develop the research or evaluation plan for individual projects. Design research or evaluation protocol and instruments.

· Coordinate and/or execute research or evaluation activities as assigned including literature reviews, data collection, data analysis, interpretation, reporting, and dissemination.

· Liaison with external evaluators as needed.

· Serve as a team member of OMSI divisions, projects, and committees as assigned.

· Proactively contribute to efforts of the division, OMSI, and the Visitor Studies and ISE fields. Serve in leadership roles as appropriate and participate in professional activities that progress the E&VS and ISE fields.

As for this month’s nano haiku,

Syllables per line
Times ten to the minus nine:
Nano haiku form.

by Matthew Mattingly, Multimedia Director at the UMass Amherst Center for Educational Software Development.

Citizen scientist webcast this weekend?

Leave a reply

Thanks to the Foresight Institute blog I found this notice of a webcast about citizen science from H+ Summit coming up this weekend,

If you can’t make it to Harvard this weekend, June 12-13, you’ll want to catch the live webcast of the H+ Summit: “Rise of the Citizen Scientist”. No link yet, but presumably they’ll be putting it on the event homepage before it starts. Also presumably they will post the videos somewhere for longer-term viewing.

According to the blogger, Chris Peterson, an H+ Summit is planned for California in December 2010.

Science and politics

4 Replies

I was gobsmacked by a link I followed from a Foresight Institute posting about a nanotechnologist running for the US Congress. From the Foresight posting (which was kept rigidly nonpartisan),

Bill McDonald brings to our attention the U.S. Congressional campaign of Mike Stopa, a Harvard nanotechnologist and physicist.

This is probably the first time that a nanotechnologist has run for Congress.

However, his profession may not get much attention, as his campaign is focusing on other issues.

I too am going to be rigidly nonpartisan as my interest here is in a kind of thought experiment: What happens if you read the campaign literature and realize that the  scientist running for political office can’t manage a logical thought process or argument outside her or his own specialty?

I think there’s an assumption that because someone is a scientist that the individual will be able to present logical arguments and come to thoughtful decisions. I’m not saying that one has to agree with the scientist just that the thinking and decisionmaking process should be cohesive but that’s not fair. Humans are messy. We can hold competing and incompatible opinions and we rationalize them when challenged. Since scientists are human (for the near future anyway), then they too are prey to both the messiness of the human condition and, by extension, the democratic process.

I’m going to continue ruminating on science and politics as I am increasingly struck by a sense that there is a trend toward incorporating more and more voices into processes (public consultation on science issues, on housing issues, on cultural issues, etc.) that were the domain of experts or policymakers simultaneous with attempts to either suppress that participation by arranging consultations in situations that are already decided or to suggest that too much participation is taking us into a state of chaos and rendering democracy as per public consultations untenable. Well, that was a mouthful.

As scientists and politics in other countries, do take a look at this Pasco Phronesis posting,

The Conservative Party [UK], when it was still shadowing the Brown government, indicated that it would require all new Members of Parliament in the party to take some training in basic science concepts [emphases mine] as part of their new member training. This was back in 2008, and would take place after the next election (which was to happen at some unspecified point in the future when the announcement was made).

While there is a new person responsible for science for the Conservatives, the plan will be put into action…and expanded.

This notion is along the lines that Preston Manning (founder of the Reform Party and the Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance Party [now absorbed by the Conservative Party] in Canada and opposition science critic) has been suggesting. Since leaving the political life, Manning has founded the Manning Centre and continues with his commentary on science and other issues.

That’s it for today.

Sunscreen and nano time, again (part 2)

2 Replies

The research example that I used in part 1 of Sunscreen and nano time, again focused on zinc oxide but Andrew Maynard offers analyses of all the studies (in this blog posting at 2020 Science which includes the portion I excerpted in part 1)  cited specifically by Friends of the Earth (FOE) on their newly published nanosunscreen page where they renew their warning against nanotechnology-enabled sunscreens. Andrew also challenges FOE with a question,

What is your worst case estimate of the human health risk from titanium dioxide and/or zinc oxide nanoparticles in sunscreens?

What I am interested in is a number – a probability of a specific human health impact being caused by using a given amount of nano-sunscreen over a certain amount of time.

He’s asking for more than a number to represent probability (or absolute risk—the definition is in part 1), he wants to know how the number has been derived and that is the real challenge. I’ve suggested previously (in part 1) that there isn’t enough data yet but if there is a way to do it, I’d love to learn more.

It should be noted that the Environmental Working Group reluctantly gave nanosunscreens a passing grade last year (more about that on this blog here) after performing a meta analysis of the research available and I notice that they have not changed their stance this year. From Andrew’s June 8, 2010 blog posting,

… the Environmental Working Group (EWG) – recently recommended a range of nanoparticle-based sunscreens. In fact, in a recent review EWG stated

Our top-rated sunscreens all contain the minerals zinc or titanium. They are the right choice for people who are looking for the best UVA protection without any sunscreen chemical considered to be a potential hormone disruptor. None of the products contain oxybenzone or vitamin A and none are sprayed or powdered.

You can find EWG’s sunscreen report here. I find it interesting that even though EWG recommends certain sunscreens they do so in a very measured fashion (from the EWG’s  Sunscreens Exposed: 9 surprising truths page,

The ideal sunscreen would completely block the UV rays that cause sunburn, immune suppression and damaging free radicals. It would remain effective on the skin for several hours and not form harmful ingredients when degraded by UV light. It would smell and feel pleasant so that people use it in the right amount and frequency.

Unsurprisingly, there is currently no sunscreen that meets all of these criteria. [emphasis mine] The major choice in the U.S. is between “chemical” sunscreens, which have inferior stability, penetrate the skin and may disrupt the body’s hormone systems, and “mineral” sunscreens (zinc and titanium), which often contain micronized- or nano-scale particles of those minerals.

A June 2, 2010 article on AOL News stands in stark contrast to the EWG’s more measured approach to nanosunscreens. Typically, the author makes claims such as this,

France, Germany, the U.K. and the European Parliament have moved rapidly to require everything from safety testing and mandatory labeling of nanoparticles to even the outright ban of these engineered chemical creations in many sunscreen and cosmetic products.

Unfortunately no supporting citations or links are provided. I did find this (from the European Commission website page on cosmetics and nanomaterials),

What specific measures has the Commission taken to address the safety of insoluble nanoparticles?

Insoluble nanoparticles in cosmetic products are essentially used as UV-filters. Some minerals, if used in a nanoscale, become invisible but still absorb UV radiation. These UV-filtering substances are increasingly used in order to have a broad-band sun protection including UVA radiation (more information on the need to ensure efficient sunscreen products). Moreover, the advantage of mineral UV-filters is that they usually do not cause cutaneous adverse effects such as contact allergies.

Up until now, the Commission has permitted one mineral UV-filter which is usually used in its nanoscale in sunscreen products (titanium dioxide). [emphasis mine]

Another substance at nanoscale, zinc oxide, has been assessed by the SCCP in 2003 in view of permission as UV-filter. The SCCP, in its opinion SCCNFP/0649/03 , concluded that the safety of zinc oxide as UV-filter had not been sufficiently demonstrated. Consequently, zinc oxide has not been permitted by the European Commission as UV-filter.

In the above-mentioned opinion of December 2007, the SCCP suggested a re-evaluation of titan dioxide in order to address in particular abnormal skin conditions as well as the possible impact of mechanical effects (eg flexing) on skin penetration. This opinion is being followed-up actively by the Commission as risk-manager.

The page was last edited on Dec. 12, 2009 so “up until now” means that  Europeans are still allowing the use of titanium dioxide in sunscreens as the other information on the page does not provide any indication that the status has changed although its use is being reassessed.

Sunscreen and nano time, again (part 1)

2 Replies

Before launching into another discussion about the safety of sunscreens with titanium dioxide and/or zinc oxide nanoparticles, I’m going to mention uncertainty and risk. First, the notion of uncertainty that I”m using is proposed in a theory coined Knightian Uncertainty and comes from the field of economics. Here’s a definition from an article by Peter Dizikes at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology News Office,

Frank Knight was an idiosyncratic economist who formalized a distinction between risk and uncertainty in his 1921 book, Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit. As Knight saw it, an ever-changing world brings new opportunities for businesses to make profits, but also means we have imperfect knowledge of future events. Therefore, according to Knight, risk applies to situations where we do not know the outcome of a given situation, but can accurately measure the odds. Uncertainty, on the other hand, applies to situations where we cannot know all the information we need in order to set accurate odds in the first place.

Making a distinction between uncertainty and risk is very helpful in trying to understand some of the less pleasant possibilities of nanotechnology-enabled products. As more research about titanium dioxide and zinc oxide nanoparticles in sunscreens is published, there’s more information that can be used to assess risk.

With regard to health, two categories of risk are commonly discussed, absolute risk and relative risk. Here is a definition excerpted  from the Patient UK website,

Absolute risk of a disease is your risk of developing the disease over a time-period. We all have absolute risks of developing various diseases such as heart disease, cancer, stroke, etc. The same absolute risk can be expressed in different ways. For example, say you have a 1 in 10 risk of developing a certain disease in your life. This can also be said a 10% risk, or a 0.1 risk – depending if you use percentages or decimals.

Relative risk is used to compare the risk in two different groups of people. For example, the groups could be ‘smokers’ and ‘non-smokers’. All sorts of groups are compared to others in medical research to see if belonging to a group increases or decreases your risk of developing certain diseases. For example, research has shown that smokers have a higher risk of developing heart disease compared to (relative to) non-smokers.

In these scenarios (heart diseases and smoking vs. non-smoking) there’s enough information to make an informed guess even though a degree of uncertainty still exists. By contrast, the situation with nanosunscreens doesn’t lend itself to an analysis of absolute or relative risk as basic information is still being gathered.

Meanwhile the civil society/activist group, Friends of the Earth (FOE) has renewed their call to remove sunscreens with titanium dioxide and/or zinc oxide nanoparticles from the market. Andrew Maynard at 2020 Science has very carefully analysed the six studies that FOE has published on their nanosunscreen page. From Andrew’s posting,

As these are evidence-based statements, I thought it would be worth while going through them, and taking a look at the evidence they are based on:

FoE: “Manufactured nanomaterials used in sunscreens (such as zinc oxide and titanium oxide) can Damage human colon cells: A study from the University of Utah showed that nano zinc oxide is toxic to colon cells even in small amounts. The scientists called for more research and warned that the evidence is especially concerning for children who are more likely to accidently ingest sunscreen. The colon is vital because it eliminates food waste and absorbs important nutrients.”

This was a study that looked at interactions between zinc oxide (ZnO) particles and cells derived from the human colon, and was carried out in vitro (i.e. in a cell culture rather than in animals or people). It did indeed indicate that nanometer scale ZnO particles were around twice as potent as larger ZnO particles in their ability to kill these cells under idealized conditions. But the research also emphasized that direct contact with the cells was needed for a nanoscale particle-related effect. In fact, the title of the paper was “ZnO Particulate Matter Requires Cell Contact for Toxicity in Human Colon Cancer Cells,” emphasizing this point above the higher potency of the more finely structured particles.

The research was interesting, but did not resolve whether zinc oxide particles could survive long enough in the gut to come into contact with cells lining the colon, whether interactions like those observed in the laboratory are plausible under real-world conditions, and what levels of exposure would be needed to cause significant harm. The research also indicated that larger particles of zinc oxide – similar to particles that have been used in sunscreens and other topical creams for decades – were toxic to cells under the conditions of the study.

So regular and nanosized particles of zinc oxide are both toxic to colon cells with the nanosized particles being 2 x more toxic. That’s not great but we’ve been using regular sized zinc oxide particles  for quite some time and, as far as I know, no one claims that it causes colon cancer.  Also, these tests were conducted with cultures (i. e. not inside the human or any other type of body) so there’s no proof that zinc oxide of any size survives long enough to enter the colon. If there were an absolute risk associated with using regular sized zinc oxide particles, theoretically we could infer an absolute risk for nanosized zinc oxide particles.

More later today.

Canada’s new copyright bill (C-32) and OECD’s take on intellectual property rights and innovation

1 Reply

Canada’s conservative government introduced a new bill (C-32) on copyright last Wednesday, June 2, 2010. The previous attempt, Bill C-61, died and, as I recall, that death occurred after furious protest largely concerning the ‘digital lock’ provision. This provision was modeled on a similar US provision, which has been highly contested in that country. For a brief description of a digital lock I went to Michael Geist’s blog where I found a posting answering 32 questions about Bill C-32,,

… what are anti-circumvention or digital lock provisions? The short answer is that they are provisions that grant legal protection to technological protection measures (TPMs). In plainer English, traditional copyright law grants creators a basket of exclusive rights in their work. TPMs or digital locks (such as copy-controls on CDs, DVDs, or e-books) effectively provide a second layer of protection by making it difficult for most people to copy or sometimes access works in digital format. Anti-circumvention legislation creates a third layer of protection by making it an infringement to simply pick or break the digital lock (in fact, it even goes further by making it an infringement to make available tools or devices that can be used to pick the digital lock). Under the Bill C-32, it would be an infringement to circumvent a TPM [digital lock] even if the intended use of the underlying work would not constitute traditional copyright infringement. [emphases mine]

I gather that even if I copy something that is now legal in Canada, e. g., make a photocopy of a page from a book for noncommercial purposes, that it will be illegal if I try this with an e-book where I need to break a digital lock. In effect, all copying becomes illegal if there’s a digital lock or other ‘technological protection measure’, which is likely with provisions such as this while we move to using more and more towards using digital media.

Intriguingly, an earlier posting by Michael Geist which focused on the original bill C-61 cited a research paper with a focus on copyright policy in Canada, the US, and Mexico where this was noted,

According to [Michèle] Austin [chief of staff for then Industry Canada Minister, Maxime Bernier], the decision to introduce U.S.-style DMCA [digital lock] rules in Canada in 2007 was strictly a political decision, the result of pressure from the Prime Minister’s Office desire to meet U.S. demands. She states “the Prime Minister’s Office’s position was, move quickly, satisfy the United States.” When Bernier and then-Canadian Heritage Minister Bev Oda protested, the PMO replied “we don’t care what you do, as long as the U.S. is satisfied.” [emphasis mine]

Thankfully, the new bill according to Geist and other sources he cites (I recommend reading his blog if you’re interested in this issue), is fairly balanced overall except for the digital lock provision.

There are two possibilities that come to mind when I consider how this ‘digital lock provision’ in the new copyright bill could have an impact on science in Canada. First, if publishers put locks on articles in science journals, you’d no longer be able to copy and paste selections (properly cited of course) into your own paper.

Second, copyright is a subclassification, along with patents and trademarks, of intellectual property law. While all three are intended to protect the creators of content, products, etc., they are often used as legal tools to intimidate competitors (large corporations or agencies such as the International Olympics Committee) or extort money (patent trolls), which tends to suppress innovation and competition. Restricting use through a new copyright law may not have a direct effect on patent law but the environment in which business and the legal profession operate will be affected and I strongly suspect adversely so.

I mentioned yesterday, The OECD Innovation Strategy: Getting a Head Start on Tomorrow and its Key Findings report. From p. 18,

An important contributor to building such networks and markets is the ability to own certain kinds of knowledge, as recognised by intellectual property rights [IPR]. IPRs provide an important incentive to invest in innovation by allowing firms to recover their investment costs. Patents are particularly important for small firms, as they can facilitate entry into new markets and enable competition and collaboration with other firms. IPRs should be well protected and appropriately enforced. Weak protection of IPRs undermines incentives to invest in innovation, facilitates counterfeiting and piracy, reduces the potential for technology transfer and limits the formation of markets for knowledge.

However, the protection of knowledge needs to be combined with policies and mechanisms that facilitate access and transfer. Excessively strong IPR may hamper the appropriate use of protected knowledge and discourage follow-on research and research in adjacent areas to the detriment of both competition and innovation.

I certainly consider the ‘digital lock provision’ in the current bill (C-32) as excessively strong and I don’t see how it helps innovation and competition (I think competition arises from innovation which is why I put it second).

Canadian Science Policy Conference 2010

Leave a reply

They have a preliminary programme for the 2010 Canadian Science Policy Conference: Building bridges for the future of science policy which will take place Oct. 20 – 22, 2010 in Montréal, Canada. From the programme page,

Themes of the conference will include, but are not limited to, the following:

* Increasing the Productivity of Canada’s Economy using Science and Technology
* Global Perspectives on Science and Technology
* Creating and Retaining Scientific Talent in Canada
* A Glance at Bioscience in Canada
* Major Issues in Canadian Science Policy

There are panels and, in some case, workshops planned for each theme. Speakers have not yet been announced and I gather they are still adding themes (maybe there’ll be something on science outreach/public engagement/dialogue/etc.). Given that it’s in Montréal, I wonder if Marc Garneau (former astronaut, current Liberal MP and science critic) could be persuaded to address them or if they could arrange a science policy debate?